As President Joe Biden meets with his G-7 colleagues in Hiroshima, Japan, this weekend, he’s taking up an agenda of timely issues, from increased Western support for Ukraine to international regulation of artificial intelligence.

The leaders of host Japan, the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Italy announced new economic support for Ukraine Friday and another round of sanctions targeting Russia over its “illegal, unjustifiable, and unprovoked aggression against Ukraine.”

Mr. Biden told the G-7 leaders the U.S. now supported providing training to Ukrainian pilots on U.S.-made F-16 aircrafts, senior officials speaking on condition of anonymity told reporters. The initiative had been gaining support in Europe.

It was also announced Friday that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will attend the summit’s closing day Sunday, a further stop on the Ukrainian leader’s own whirlwind diplomatic tour, which included an appeal for support Friday in Saudi Arabia to members of the Arab League.

But in Asia, Mr. Biden, beyond his short-term policy agenda, is also pursuing two key pillars of his presidency’s foreign policy: revitalizing America’s alliances and demonstrating democracy’s virtues as an effective governing system in an era of advancing authoritarianism.

Hanging over both priorities is the debt ceiling crisis Mr. Biden left behind in Washington – and how that unresolved domestic issue forced the White House to cancel the second half of what was to have been a weeklong trip showcasing the U.S. commitment to the Asia-Pacific region.

Ukrainian Presidential Press Office/AP/File

Japanese Prime Minister Kishida Fumio and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy greet each other during their meeting in Kyiv, Ukraine, March 21, 2023.

Canceled were post-G-7 visits to Australia and the Pacific island nation of Papua New Guinea – the latter proudly touted by the White House as the first visit by a sitting president to a South Pacific island nation.

Gone, a planned summit in Sydney of leaders from the Quad countries: the U.S., Australia, India, and Japan. Nixed, a gathering of Pacific Island leaders in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea’s capital, and a presidential announcement of an agreement to grant the U.S. military access to the island nation’s ports and airports.

For some, the disrupted and truncated presidential tour will only reinforce concerns that a weakened America distracted by political divisions at home may not be up to leading the Indo-Pacific region as it confronts an increasingly assertive China.

Indeed, for some critics, the political brinkmanship on display in Washington over the debt limit – Republican negotiators walked away from talks with the White House on Friday – can only muffle Mr. Biden’s ringing pro-democracy rhetoric on the international stage – and delight Beijing.

Reflecting a region’s disappointment, the Sydney Morning Herald’s foreign affairs columnist Matthew Knott this week highlighted Washington’s “mess” and noted, “The Quad summit in Sydney should have provided a powerful symbol of four proud democracies working together to get things done. Instead,” he added, “it will serve to highlight the systemic problems plaguing the world’s longest-standing democracy and its aspirations for ongoing global leadership.”

Not exactly the kind of press and public-diplomacy impact the White House must have had in mind when planning the president’s Asia trip.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is joined by Republicans from the Senate and House as he leads an event on the debt limit negotiations, at the Capitol in Washington, May 17, 2023. On Friday, GOP negotiators walked away from talks with the White House.

Moreover, the spectacle of an American president having his wings clipped by an ornery opposition and dysfunctional politics at home has been widely characterized as a “gift” to Beijing, which has been critical of Washington’s stepped-up attention to South Pacific nations and strengthening alliance with Australia.

The contrast of an ascendant China with a weakened American superpower was underscored by reports of a smiling Chinese leader Xi Jinping holding his own summit with five Central Asian countries on the eve of the G-7 gathering.

Mr. Xi’s summit burnished an image of a confident global leader racking up a series of diplomatic triumphs over recent months – without worries of an undermining political opposition at home.

Still, experts in Asian affairs and diplomatic relations say any setbacks to Mr. Biden’s foreign policy agenda as a result of his canceled visits can be short-lived if the administration continues what some say has been intense groundwork and diplomatic engagement in the region.

And, of course, if the world’s largest economy can resolve the debt ceiling crisis before it damages an already fragile global economy.

“Presence matters to all U.S. allies in the region, so yes, the cancellation of the second leg of President Biden’s Asia trip is going to cause some disappointment and raise some questions. And it will certainly embolden China and others who oppose strong U.S. leadership in Asia to double down on their portraying of the U.S as an unreliable partner,” says Nicholas Szechenyi, deputy director of the Japan chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

“But this can yet be a temporary blip on the radar screen,” he adds, “if the administration sticks to the very robust agenda and the extensive and multidimensional networking it has developed across the region.”

Ding Haitao/Xinhua/AP

Chinese leader Xi Jinping (center) and his wife, Peng Liyuan (fourth from right), stand with Central Asian leaders at the Ziyun Tower in Xi'an in northwestern China's Shaanxi Province, May 18, 2023.

There’s no getting around the fact that the now-canceled stops in Papua New Guinea and Australia are “missed opportunities” for the U.S. to bolster relations and presence in a region it long overlooked, Mr. Szechenyi says.

But he notes that Mr. Biden plans to meet his three Quad counterparts on the sidelines of the G-7 summit (Japan’s Prime Minister Kishida Fumio, plus Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who were invited to attend as non-G-7 leaders, as was South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol) while a planned trilateral meeting of the U.S., Japanese, and South Korean leaders remains on the agenda.

Others say any doubts about U.S. leadership raised by Mr. Biden’s domestic political travails should be weighed against the administration’s recent diplomatic successes on the Asia-Pacific front.

The “split screen” of the administration promoting democracy abroad while debilitated by political brawling at home is as jarring as the public curtailing of a carefully planned trip is “disturbing,” says Lyle Goldstein, director of Asia engagement at Defense Priorities in Washington.

But no one should overlook recent U.S. advances in the region, he adds.

“We could say the Biden administration has had some run of successes in its Asia policy,” he says, highlighting in particular President Yoon’s recent state visit to the White House and accords with the Philippines to expand the U.S. military presence there.

A successful weeklong trip around the Pacific “was going to be the icing on the cake,” Dr. Goldstein says. Losing that may not be good, he adds.

But more worrisome to his thinking is how intense attention to Mr. Biden’s Asia summitry is obscuring the perils of an absence of high-level diplomacy with China.

“We’re putting too much effort into these symbolic meetings,” he says, “and not focusing enough on the ... situations that remain extremely dark,” first and foremost deteriorating relations with China.

Stefan Rousseau/AP

Leaders attending the G-7 summit (from left) British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni, U.S. President Joe Biden, European Council President Charles Michel, Japan's Prime Minister Kishida Fumio, French President Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz visit the Peace Memorial Park before attending the summit's first working session in Hiroshima, Japan, May 19, 2023.

On a recent extended trip to China to meet with officials, retired military officers, and academics, Dr. Goldstein says he was struck by a near-universal and deeply pessimistic perspective that the U.S., through its stepped-up military diplomacy and expanded basing in the region, must be preparing for war over Taiwan.

As for any damage to Mr. Biden’s pro-democracy project, some experts note that the democratic world, starting with the G-7 leaders, will understand that tough domestic politics come with the territory. Others emphasize that Mr. Biden can mitigate any fallout from the unresolved debt ceiling crisis by highlighting the democratic underpinnings of the G-7 and other alliances the U.S. is strengthening, like the Quad.

“Biden will be able to use his presence at the G-7 summit to rally the international community to support the rules-based international order that is essential to the region’s prosperity and security,” says Mr. Szechenyi. “Strengthening the rules and norms of that order is one of Japan’s priorities for the summit,” he adds, “so we should expect to see considerable attention” to the issue.

Some experts note that Mr. Biden will host the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders’ summit in San Francisco in November. The spectacle of disrupted U.S. diplomacy could be a faint memory by then, they say.

But if Mr. Biden aims to keep his Asia policy on track, he will have to get an Australia and South Pacific visit back on his agenda as soon as possible, Mr. Szechenyi adds.

Apparently acutely aware of this, the White House has taken to using phrases like “until [the canceled visits] can be rescheduled” in its statements from Hiroshima.

Havva Nur Şenel, a law student, was up all night last Sunday, nervously following Turkey’s election results.

As she followed the live coverage on TV with her father, the 21-year-old first-time voter argued with him, challenging his support for the government. Phone in hand, she texted continuously with her politically like-minded friends as they boosted each other’s confidence that the opposition would win and their future would be bright.

Around 3 a.m. on Monday, Ms. Şenel realized it was not to be. Neither of the leading presidential candidates had won 50% of the vote, meaning there would be a runoff on May 28.

She was disappointed. But she was also relieved that incumbent President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had not won an outright victory. 

“Compared to previous elections, we [the opposition] were successful,” she says. “We are happy that it has gone to a runoff. I knew it would be difficult to win in the first round.”

Özge Sebzeci/Special to The Christian Science Monitor

Havva Nur Şenel, a law student, watched the election results come in on TV at her family home in Istanbul, arguing with her father. She says she was relieved that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan did not win outright.

Mr. Erdoğan has won every national election he has contested since 2002, first for the post of prime minister and in 2018 for the presidency. Never has his lead been so narrow as it was on Sunday: 49.5% of the vote, against 44.9% for opposition leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. 

But with expectations high that supporters of a far-right third-party candidate who won 5.3% of the vote will throw their votes to Mr. Erdoğan in the runoff, the picture looks bleak for the opposition. 

Licking wounds, but clinging to hope

At home, and internationally, observers have described this year’s presidential elections in Turkey as the most important anywhere, with implications for other democracies risking a slide towards more authoritarianism.

Opposition voters are licking their wounds and figuring out how to cope with their disappointment before they cast a ballot again. Many view this election as existential, their last chance to preserve their receding freedom of expression and to restore a battered economy.

“Right now, we are no longer fighting for an ideology, but for freedom, equality, our own future and life, where our fundamental rights are protected,” declares Seda Gökçe, a documentary film producer.

Ms. Gökçe says she went silent immediately after she heard the election results. “I wanted to withdraw, stay away from the news, cut off my communication with people as much as possible, and digest that disappointment,” she says.

But she is going to vote again in the runoff, even though she harbors little hope for change.

Supporters of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) believe only President Erdoğan will protect Turkey’s national security and the religious family values on which he has built much of his success.

The country’s divided electorate is celebrating 100 years as a democratic republic with a secular constitution that stipulates the separation of religion and state.

Özge Sebzeci/Special to The Christian Science Monitor

Mustafa Uzun, who voted for President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, says he is happy with the election result.

“If Erdoğan wins again, and he might ... things will go in a negative direction,” says Erkan Saka, a media expert at Istanbul’s Bilgi University. Democracy will decline further, he fears. 

Over the past decade, President Erdoğan has jailed critics, stifled the media, and banned anti-government protests in the name of national security.

“I don’t see that there will be a massive crackdown because that already happened several times. There’s nothing much to crack down on,” says Dr. Saka. “And I’m expecting a worse economic situation.”

Though opposition voters were initially demoralized, Dr. Saka says, their fear of the consequences of an Erdoğan victory has spurred them to renewed efforts. “The coming days are important. How the opposition parties are dealing and managing this campaign is very critical,” he says.

A civil discussion

Far-right nationalist Sinan Oğan, the third presidential candidate and potential kingmaker, surprised pollsters by taking 5.3% of last Sunday’s vote. 

His electorate is more likely to vote for Mr. Erdoğan in the second round because his religious and ultra-nationalist outlook resembles the president’s stance, says Valeria Giannotta, an Ankara-based political analyst at the European Institute for Eurasian Dialogue, a think tank. “It’s very difficult to beat Erdoğan,” she says.

Ms. Şenel, the law student, disagrees, confident that Oğan voters will switch to Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu because they share his belief in the nationalist vision of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, modern Turkey’s founder. 

Özge Sebzeci/Special to The Christian Science Monitor

Nafise Aksoy, a nursing student, lives with her parents because she cannot afford rising rents. "I can’t even think about Erdoğan winning again," she says. "The stakes are too high."

Strolling along the Istanbul waterfront earlier this week with her friend Ms. Şenel, nursing student Nafise Aksoy says she has to live with her parents because inflation has pushed apartment rents beyond her reach. Nor does she find it easy to contemplate the consequences of Mr. Erdoğan winning another five-year period in office. 

“I can’t even think about Erdoğan winning again. The stakes are too high. I was really down at first but I’m hopeful now,” she says, if only because she has no other choice.

Sitting on a bench nearby overlooking the Bosporus, Soydan Çetin, an architect, says the political system has become meaningless for him since Sunday. “I feel like everything is fake,” he says. But he will still be going to the polls for the runoff, just in case.

Mr. Çetin says he might even leave Turkey if Mr. Erdoğan wins. “I like my country, but with Erdoğan, we’re headed for fascism,” he fears.

A stranger sitting next to him on the bench overhears that comment and disagrees. “Erdoğan keeps his promises,” he interjects.

Mr. Çetin and the stranger, who turns out to be a middle-aged banker, have a civil discussion about the political situation, then laugh as they agree to disagree.

Despite their gloom, opposition voters are galvanizing each other into action.

Duygu Özünal, an industrial engineer who volunteered as an election monitor in a pro-government district for the first round of elections, says she is trying to avoid negativity.

“I think my biggest fear is despair because when there is no hope, you kind of give up. However, if Erdoğan wins, the future of our society, the problems we are experiencing right now, the language of violence ... really frighten me,” she says.

Ms. Özünal says she’s anxious, but she’s putting her nervous energy into organizing for the second round with her circle of volunteer election workers.

“I am still hopeful now,” she says, “because we are a substantial crowd who want to take care of our future, and there are many young people among us. I think that is very important.”

When former U.S. Marine Daniel Penny restrained Jordan Neely with a rear naked choke earlier this month, killing him on a New York City subway car, the moment touched the nation’s most sensitive of cultural nerves.

Caught on a bystander video, it was an intimate moment of violence, punctuated by the contexts of recent rising crime, the ethics of self-defense, and the enduring specter of race in America. Mr. Penny, who is white, lay flat on his back on the subway floor as he held Mr. Neely, who is Black, on top of him, clenching his neck in an arm vice from behind.

Images of Mr. Neely’s killing have sparked deeply emotional reactions across the country, laying bare not only the country’s deep partisan divides, but also the contrasting values underlying the profoundly different reactions to Mr. Penny’s actions on the New York subway. Today in Harlem, hundreds of people gathered to mourn at Mr. Neely’s funeral at the Mount Neboh Baptist Church.

Witnesses have described the actions of Mr. Neely, an unhoused person who had a history of arrests, including an assault on an elderly woman in 2021, as erratic and potentially violent. He screamed that he had no food or drink and didn’t care if he went to jail, and took his coat off and threw it down. That’s when Mr. Penny took him down to the floor from behind, witnesses said, keeping him in a chokehold for 15 minutes, even after he went limp.

Before the video became public, police questioned Mr. Penny and released him. But the video caused an uproar, and homeless advocates and Democratic politicians such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said the circumstances of the encounter did not justify the former Marine’s violent reaction. The video also led New York officials to later charge Mr. Penny with manslaughter. 

“Was Mr. Neely behaving erratically? Reports indicate that he was. Might one feel threatened by such behavior? Certainly,” says Christopher Fee, professor of English at Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania, who has taught service-based courses on homelessness for two decades. “Should Mr. Neely have died for this behavior? No, of course not. Further, if he were not an African American man, it is quite unlikely that he would have.”

Stand your ground vs. duty to retreat

Since 2005, however, there has been a momentous shift in the ethical and legal understanding of self-defense as Republican states began to pass so-called stand-your-ground laws. Today, 27 states, mostly Republican-led, have passed laws that protect individuals’ rights to use deadly force whenever they have a reasonable fear they are being threatened with danger. These laws eliminate what was legally known as a “duty to retreat.”

Bebeto Matthews/AP

Andre Zachery (second from left) father of Jordan Neely, stands outside with mourners at a funeral service for his son at Harlem's Mount Neboh Baptist Church, May 19, 2023, in New York.

Thirteen mostly Democratic-led states, including New York, still impose the duty to retreat, which means individuals cannot resort to deadly force to defend themselves outside their homes if they are able to safely avoid the risk of harm and flee the situation. 

So Republican politicians and many conservatives have seized upon the case to declare Mr. Penny a hero, a “Subway Superman,” an avatar of bravery and justified self-defense in the midst of an urban crime wave – and to castigate Democratic notions of justice in this case.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, in a reference to a well-known parable of Jesus, proclaimed Mr. Penny a “Good Samaritan,” altering the New Testament story about kindness to strangers to describe him as trying to take back the streets from criminals.

“We must defeat the Soros-Funded DAs, stop the Left’s pro-criminal agenda, and take back the streets for law-abiding citizens,” Governor DeSantis, who is expected to launch a run for the 2024 presidential race next week, tweeted. “We stand with Good Samaritans like Daniel Penny. Let’s show this Marine ... America’s got his back.”

Former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, echoing her likely Florida rival this week, also urged New York’s Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul to pardon Mr. Penny.

If she doesn’t, Ms. Haley said that “criminals will continue to rule the streets of New York because they will know that there is no accountability for anyone who tries to stop them,” she told Fox News. “If she pardons him, that sets right a lot of things. It’ll put criminals on notice. And, it will let people like Penny – who really were very brave in that instance – it will let them know that we’ve got their back.”

In fact, the crime rate in New York City remains a fraction of the rampant crime and violence the city experienced in the 1970s and 1980s. And while subway crime spiked during the pandemic and has remained an issue, it has been falling this year. Overall subway crime is down nearly 20% in 2023 compared to last year. Major crimes have fallen 10% since this time in 2022.

Daniel Perry and Bernie Goetz

In a similar case, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said last month he plans to pardon the former Army Sgt. Daniel Perry, who was convicted of murdering an armed man during a Black Lives Matter protest in 2020 in Austin. Last week, a Texas judge sentenced Mr. Perry to prison for 25 years. 

“Texas has one of the strongest ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws of self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive District Attorney,” Republican Governor Abbott tweeted in April, noting that the parole board would have to issue a recommendation for pardon. “I have already prioritized [reining] in rogue District Attorneys.”  

Images of Mr. Penny choking Mr. Neely on the subway, however, have deeper associations in New York. In 1984, the notorious case of Bernhard “Bernie” Goetz also gripped the nation. Mr. Goetz, who had been a victim of subway crime, shot four Black teenagers after they attempted to rob him. Also hailed as a hero at the time, a jury acquitted Mr. Goetz of the charges of attempted murder and assault.

But the killings of Eric Garner in 2014 and George Floyd in 2020 have also informed the national debate over Mr. Neely’s killing, as well as New York’s reaction to chokeholds that have killed unarmed Black men. 

In 1993, the New York Police Department banned the use of asphyxiating chokeholds. And after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, the state of New York became one of the first to ban the use of chokeholds by law enforcement statewide. 

In 2022, a state court also reinstated a local law the New York City Council passed after the murder of Mr. Floyd in 2020. The Eric Garner Anti-Chokehold Act, or “diaphragm law,” banned the use of chokeholds – or any type of sitting, kneeling, or standing on a person’s chest or back that could suffocate them.

Many observers say Mr. Penny’s actions to restrain Mr. Neely on the subway should be understood in the context of the nation’s epidemic of mass shootings. In 2022, a Black nationalist entered a New York subway car, threw smoke grenades, and fired a handgun 33 times, injuring almost 30 people. No one was killed. 

“I don’t think this actual episode was as much about race – no real evidence that was a factor – and more about too many guns and gun shootings and the lack of government help for mental illness and homelessness,” says Lori Brown, professor of sociology and criminology at Meredith College in North Carolina. “And I do think there is an issue for the passengers on the subway who didn’t trust the police to take care of things and decided to take care of things themselves.”

“Acts rooted in fear”

But the contexts of gun violence can’t be separated from the wider history of race in America, others say.

“These acts are rooted in fear: fear of death, fear of bodily harm, fear of the other, fear of that which we do not understand,” says Professor Fee at Gettysburg College. “Jordan Neely represented a terrible trifecta of sorts, in that he represented three categories Americans most fear: Black men, the poor and unhoused, and the mentally ill.”

Rodney Coates, professor of critical race and ethnic studies at Miami University in Ohio, says it is not surprising that those who would ban discussions of the history of race and racism, or expel Black lawmakers from their midst, would then defend the chokehold killing of a Black man in a crisis situation.

“We’ve got tens of thousands of people who have heard that clarion call and are trying to enjoy that thing called freedom,” says Dr. Coates, animatedly. “And we have lost the capacity, if we ever had the capacity, or the empathy, to say, you know what? These deaths, these murders, even urban crime, or a young man walking and saying, ‘I don’t have anything to eat and drink, I don’t have a place’ – these are screaming huddled masses yelling, ‘Hey, we’re here.’”

“What are we going to do about them?” he says. “Where is the American dream, and how do we make that American dream a reality? What does that look like? We are at this existential point in time. It’s an existential moment that is going to define us as a people. Not Black, white, Native American, homeless without shelter, but as humans, as Americans.”

Karen Norris/Staff

I alienated a good friend with whom I used to text and talk frequently. Why? Because I couldn’t keep my thumbs still during a three-way text conversation. I couldn’t stop replying to her with snark and cynicism.

Another three-way text group fell apart when I felt the other two were ganging up on me. I went into pre-emptive attack mode, then cut off all communication.

I started a “question of the day” segment in a family text group. We’d talk about everything from movies to politics. But despite several warnings from loved ones that some of my responses were judgmental and that I was too quick to attack an opinion, I all but killed that group text. It had a good 12 people in it. We’d shared laughs, encouragement, and funny memes. It took only one conversation – which I was in the middle of – to end it. 

I realized that I had a problem. Truthfully, I may still have one. But thankfully, I took a look inside and realized that the issue was me, and not everyone I harbored ill feelings toward because I thought they were being obnoxious.

The conduit for – and amplifier of – my problem is the smartphone. 

Before smartphones enabled instant communication, people talked on the telephone. But there was no satisfying way to get 12 people on one phone call. A group that large had to be in person – an even better way to communicate. In person, you could hear the cadence and inflection of what someone said. You could interject a “What do you mean by that?” to correct a misunderstanding before it got out of hand. Much less was left to the imagination. 

Don’t get me wrong: I love a good group text. Whether it’s three people or 10, I love sharing laughter or discussing current events. It makes me feel connected to people in a way that I just can’t seem to anymore, now that I have a wife and kids. I can’t spare the time to call friends or family and talk for hours, because we all have responsibilities. 

I recall text arguments I’ve had with my wife. I knew immediately after sending the text that it was wrong, but I just had to respond. My relationship with her is the biggest influence, the biggest reminder that I need to take a breath and put my phone down for a moment before I respond. At times it may be best not to respond at all, in fact.

I’m learning, but I had a relapse recently. I joined a new text group that included a handful of guys I’d gone to elementary school with. Most of us are fathers and spouses now. We share pictures and stories about our kids, and reminisce about our childhood. Mostly we comment on sports.

I should have left it at that, but instead I introduced my “question of the day” feature. I fooled myself into thinking that I was fostering a healthy debate on current events. No. Others in the group saw it as me trying to prove that my way was the right way. Then I made the mistake of sharing some personal information that one friend had told me during a phone conversation. I thought everyone knew. I didn’t give it a thought. 

Then this friend started referring to me as “The Feds” and saying that I was a snitch. We are Black men from Philadelphia. “Snitch” and “The Feds” are not terms of endearment. Instantly, I shot back. This continued for a time. 

Then I realized my friend was doing it whenever I started trying to engage people and ask questions. So I asked him about it – in person. That’s when he told me I’d shared sensitive information he hadn’t told anyone else. I felt awful, as I should have. I apologized profusely and came away from the conversation more determined to slow down my texts. 

My new resolve seems to be working. You should be pleased to know that I have refrained from making a few points that I was tempted to make in individual and group texts. I kept myself from punching a fiery response into my phone immediately after receiving what I considered a provocative text. In some cases, I didn’t even respond. I haven’t lost any more connections by doing this. 

I’m learning. Sometimes fast is just too fast.

AP

People jostle for subsidized sacks of flour in Pakistan, one of many countries heavily indebted to foreign creditors.

Honesty will be a prime topic at the Group of Seven summit this weekend in Japan. For leaders of these wealthy nations, there’s still too much secrecy around an estimated $326 billion in debt held by more than 70 low-income nations. A default by any one of them – or worse, a country caught lying about its statistics – could spark a global financial crisis.

“It is essential to improve debt data transparency and accuracy to prevent future debt crises,” says Japanese Finance Minister Suzuki Shunichi.

Yet the fact that the G-7 is even pressing more nations to be open about their debt details is a testament to the honesty already achieved in official data. Since the 1994-95 Mexican financial crisis, both the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have raised global standards by helping dozens of countries adopt advanced reporting systems. “We are working hard to make statistics more comprehensive and available,” says David Malpass, the departing World Bank president. In some countries, criticism of official data is still a crime.

Data transparency is a “public good” and “a core principle of good governance,” says the IMF. And not just to avoid a financial collapse or to better involve citizens in decision making. Without accuracy in climate-action data, for example, the world may not make as much progress against global warming. “Sound public finances enable us to invest even more in the fight against climate change,” says European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

A leading example of how data dishonesty can ricochet around the globe is Greece. In 2009-10, a new government in Athens admitted the country had long lied about its national deficit. The sudden fear of a debt default triggered a severe financial crisis in Europe that almost ended the continent’s experiment with a single currency, the euro.

One of those who exposed the truth about Greece’s finances was a new member of the country’s reformed statistics agency, Andreas Georgiou. “As a statistician, you hold up a mirror to society: look, this is you,” he told the German news outlet Süddeutsche Zeitung in March. “And it is a constant of history that the rulers would like to keep this mirror in their own hands.”

Today, after an international bailout program for Greece, severe fiscal austerity for its people, and better reporting of official statistics, the country has experienced one of the most rapid rates of debt reduction in the world. The government budget is expected to show a surplus this year. And Greece’s economy could be upgraded soon to “investment grade” by international credit agencies.

All of Greece’s reforms during the country’s 10-year debt crisis “have all contributed to the maturity of the Greek society, enabling it to understand the new international economic environment,” stated Greece’s central bank in April.

Greece’s comeback from debt deceit will be in the background at the G-7 in Hiroshima. Financial statistics can be as dry as dust. Yet when officials are open and honest about such data, it can lubricate the world economy.